RUTHFULLY YOURS

Professor of Jewish History Yosef Yerushalmi observed that “Zakhor!” “Remember” is enjoined in the Bible 169 times.

Tragically, the behavior of most Jewish leaders reveals that they remember nothing of relevance to a Jewish future.  They have forgotten that modern Zionism arose in response to an anti-Semitism that showed itself impervious to the so-called European “Enlightenment.” They have forgotten that it soon became apparent that only Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews, could provide the motivation for even secular Jews to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve a state.  They have forgotten how prescient the early Zionists were, for their worst forebodings were realized: millions died for lack of the state that could have offered them refuge from their murderers.  They have forgotten how, in the wake of the UN’s vote for partition, the reborn state of Israel held on against what seemed impossible odds and went on to create a vibrant, free, prosperous, innovative state in a region mired in chaos and despair.  They have forgotten that an umbilical cord attaches them to Israel.  They have forgotten—if they ever knew–the extent to which their standing in the United States depends on Israel’s existence, and how vulnerable they will be if Jews once again become a people without a land.

In the early 1970s, historian and rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, as President of the American Jewish Congress, anticipated some of this “forgetting.” He believed that Israel would soon achieve peace with its neighbors and at that point the divergence of Israel’s interests from those of diaspora Jews would become obvious and Israel would lose much of its salience for Jews abroad.  Hertzberg did not foresee what has in fact happened: that far from reconciling themselves to Israel’s existence, Arabs would spearhead an increasingly successful world-wide movement to delegitimize her.  Nor did he foresee that a plethora of Jewish organizations would emerge, not simply indifferent to Israel but actively hostile to her interests (J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, Ameinu, the New Israel Fund among others).  Nor did he foresee that for the most part mainstream Jewish organizations would transfer their enthusiasm to a variety of trendy left-wing causes, from climate change to gay rights to abortion to gun control, with Israel a distant fifth or sixth on the agenda, if that.

Take the Anti-Defamation League, the organization originally established to fight anti-Semitism.  Jonathan Bronitsky has written an informative report on the ADL from the “inside.” Selected to participate in the ADL’s Glass Leadership Institute, a ten month program for a select group of young professionals to be closely involved in the organization, he was unsettled to discover that “the ADL has dedicated itself more and more to matters of social justice in America (e.g. immigration, women’s reproductive health, economic privilege)…[to] advance political agendas that have nothing to do with defending the Jewish people.” When he merely raised questions, says Bronitsky, “the wrath that I encountered, time and time again, was stunning.  Are upper middle class, highly educated American Jews so isolated from non-liberal thoughts that even the slightest contestation of their most firmly held beliefs is enough to trigger landslides of emotional chaos?” Bronitzky found the intellectual dishonesty, the pretense that the organization did not tout the Democratic party agenda, particularly disheartening.  “It is difficult to convey just how intellectually insulting, how patronizing it was to be told by winking staff members that their organization is nonpartisan.”

The ADL, like most Jewish organizations, is willfully blind to the growing distancing of the Democratic Party, as it marches left, from Israel and Jews.  The favorite among Democrats to head the Democratic National Committee has been Keith Ellison, for many years an acolyte of Louis Farrakhan, of “Judaism is a gutter religion” fame.  Interestingly it was not Ellison’s hostility to Israel that bothered ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt (who initially supported him).  It was Ellison’s suggestion in a 2010 speech (that belatedly came to light) that Jews dictated American Mideast policy that Greenblatt found “disqualifying”—anti-Semitism focused directly on American Jews struck too close to home.

But nothing epitomizes the failure of much of Jewish leadership to advance the interests of Israel and Jewry alike than the reaction to the appointment of David Friedman as the next ambassador to Israel.  The appointment should have been the cause of uniform Jewish celebration.  Friedman is an Orthodox Jew, a strong supporter of Israel, and has headed the American Friends of Beit El Institutions.  Beit El, one of the vilified “settlements” in Samaria, is best known abroad for producing Arutz Sheva, otherwise known as Israel National News.  With Jason Greenblatt (not to be confused with the disastrous ADL director) who Trump has appointed to the new post of Special Representative for International Negotiations, Friedman wrote a splendid position paper for the Trump campaign outlining 16 points on which the new administration’s policy on Israel should be based.

Were the Trump administration to adhere to them, there would be a sea change in relations from the abysmal Obama years.  Sample points: A Trump administration will ensure Israel receives maximum military, strategic and tactical cooperation from the United States.  The U.S.  should veto any UN votes that unfairly single out Israel and cut off funds for the UN Human Rights Council.  The U.S.  should view the BDS movement as inherently anti-Semitic and take strong measures to thwart it.  The false notion that Israel is an occupier should be rejected.  The U.S.  will support direct negotiations and resist any effort to bypass them, including at the UN Security Council.  The U.S.  will support Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself against terror attacks and alternative forms of warfare.  (Notice the term “obligation” and contrast this with the typical outcry in the West whenever Israel, goaded beyond endurance, acts in self-defense.)

Icing on the cake, both Friedman and Trump himself say the new ambassador will be stationed in Jerusalem.  Congress mandated moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 1995 and a series of presidential candidates have promised to do so and failed to follow through.  And yes, the State Department will undoubtedly do its best to make President Trump follow the pattern, threatening all sorts of dire consequences should he act.  Still, there can be no doubt of Trump’s good intentions.  His close associate, Kellyanne Conway, says moving the embassy is a big priority for him.  Given the huge emphasis Jews in the past have put on recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, this should have been further cause for enthusiasm for Friedman’s appointment.

And then there is Friedman’s refreshing willingness to take on Israel’s Jewish enemies.  J Street is Obama’s favorite Jewish organization; one of its leaders has described it as Obama’s “political and ideological home.” Which makes it all the more gratifying that Friedman singled out J Street in an Israel National News column in June.  J Street supporters, said Friedman, “are far worse than kapos—Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps.  The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under these circumstances to save a loved one.  But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas—it’s hard to imagine anyone worse.” After his selection as ambassador a host of Jewish leaders demanded he apologize but although politicians and celebrities normally fall over themselves to satisfy the sensitivities of any grouplet that claims its feelings have been bruised, Friedman has courageously refused to back down.

But Friedman’s most welcome attribute is his open questioning of the hitherto sacred yet in practice absurd “two state solution.” In the 16 point position paper, he and Greenblatt say why the emperor has no clothes.  Such a solution is impossible as long as the Palestinians are unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to existence as a Jewish state.  And they point out that a two state solution cannot be implemented given that the Palestinians are divided between PA rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza.

The reaction of the fringe Jewish left to Friedman’s bold assertion of a pro-Israel policy has been predictable.  J Street calls Friedman “beyond the pale” and his nomination “reckless.” Americans for Peace Now declared “Friedman opposes the very essence of APN’s values and mission.” The Israel Policy Forum called his nomination “disastrous.” There’s no need to quote the others, for one group echoes the other.  All the outfits have pledged to fight Friedman’s nomination in the Senate.

The organizations most supportive of Israel, including Americans for a Safe Israel, the ZOA and the Republican Jewish Coalition have all come out strongly in favor of Friedman’s nomination.

But what about the large mainstream Jewish organizations, including AIPAC, ADL, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the large Federations? Friedman has made an effort to reach out to the leaders of these organizations.  But at this writing the only one to respond positively has been the head of the World Jewish Congress, Ron Lauder (himself a former ambassador to Austria under Reagan) who says he is confident Friedman will make “an outstanding ambassador.” As for the rest, they are sulking in their tents.

With luck this rejection of Friedman can serve as a wake-up call.  This has been a year that  masses voted against elites.  Perhaps Jews will revolt against their elites if they recognize how far they have strayed from their mission, becoming J Street-lites.  The elites are dedicated to the causes du jour of the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how hostile that party becomes to Israel and how injurious its favored causes—like refugee immigration–are to Jews.  The ADL’s Greenblatt even vows to register as a Muslim if there is a Muslim registry.  Never mind that nothing is more detrimental to Jewish interests than Muslim immigration. Worst of all, we have come to the once unthinkable situation where for much of the Jewish leadership it is illegitimate to be unashamedly pro-Israel.

Shimon Peres, the architect of Oslo, who did more to damage Israel than any modern leader, used to say “There is nothing to learn from history.” If the broader Jewish community does not shake off its disgraceful leaders, who live by this motto even if they do not articulate it, the warning of the Baal Shem Tov will be vindicated: “Forgetfulness leads to exile.”